Get Unified Part Upload URL

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses signature verification for URI integrity, explicitly states the operation is read-only, and details common error responses (401, 403, 404). It also notes default values for company_id/project_id, though this conflicts with the required schema listing.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is longer than average but each sentence delivers value: purpose, usage, parameter behavior, return type, error handling, and endpoint. It is front-loaded with the core action and well-structured, though slightly verbose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers purpose, usage, parameters, return shape, error semantics, and API endpoint, which is comprehensive for a read-only tool without an output schema. The minor contradiction about required vs. defaulting parameters prevents a perfect score.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining that company_id and project_id can default from procore_set_config and that upload_id/part_number must reference existing parent records. However, the defaulting statement contradicts the schema's required flag, introducing ambiguity.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's function: retrieving an upload URL for a specific part by upload ID and part number, with signature verification. It distinguishes itself from sibling upload URL tools by specifying 'unified part upload URL' and the exact use case.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides explicit usage guidance: use when you already know which URL you want and need the full field set. It also instructs resolving upload_id and part_number via the matching list tool first, making the when-to-use and prerequisites clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.